Aalborg Universitet Stability of Cubipod Armoured Roundheads in Short Crested Waves Burcharth, Hans Falk; Andersen, Thomas Lykke; Medina, Josep R. Published in: Coastal Engineering 2010 Publication date: 2011 Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Link to publication from Aalborg University Citation for published version (APA): Burcharth, H. F., Andersen, T. L., & Medina, J. R. (2011). Stability of Cubipod Armoured Roundheads in Short Crested Waves. In J. M. Smith, & P. Lynett (Eds.), Coastal Engineering 2010: Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Coastal Engineering Coastal Engineering Research Council. Proceedings of the International Conference on Coastal Engineering, No. 32 General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.? Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.? You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain? You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal? Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us at vbn@aub.aau.dk providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Downloaded from vbn.aau.dk on: januar 08, 2019
STABILITY OF CUBIPOD ARMOURED ROUNDHEADS IN SHORT-CRESTED WAVES. A COMPARISON BETWEEN CUBIPOD AND CUBE ARMOUR STABILITY Hans F. Burcharth 1, Thomas Lykke Andersen 1 and Josep R.Medina 2 The paper presents a comparison of the stability of concrete cube armour and Cubipod armour in a breakwater roundhead with slope 1:1.5, exposed to both 2-D (long-crested) and 3-D (short-crested) waves. The model tests were performed at the Hydraulics and Coastal Engineering Laboratory at Aalborg University, Denmark. The model tests showed that Cubipod armour is more stable than cube armour when exposed to longer waves (steepness approx. 0.025) and has equal stability to cubes in shorter waves. The Cubipod armour layer contained due to its high porosity approximately 6-17% less concrete than the cube armour layer. Therefore, it was concluded that per used volume of concrete the Cubipods perform better than the cubes. Keywords: breakwaters; concrete armour; Cubipod; roundheads; short-crested waves INTRODUCTION The roundhead is generally the most exposed part of the breakwater. Moreover, in case of rubble mound structures the needed armour size is larger than in the adjacent trunk. Typically units of almost double mass are needed in the roundhead if high density stones or concrete are not used in the head. The Cubipod as shown in Fig. 1 is a relatively new development, see Gómez-Martin and Medina (2008) for details. Figure 1. Cubipod armour unit. The Cubipod is similar to a cube except that it features protrusions on each face to prevent locally strongly varying packing density as well as to increase the friction against the filter layer. A comparison of the stability of Cubipod and cube armoured roundheads has been performed at the Environmental Hydraulics Institute at the University of Cantabria (Gómez-Martin and Medina 2008) using long-crested waves covering Iribarren numbers in the range 2.0 3.4. The tests indicate a slightly better stability of the Cubipods compared to cubes. A new comparison using short-crested waves was made at the Hydraulics and Coastal Engineering Laboratory at Aalborg University, Denmark (Burcharth et al. 2009). The stability of Cubipod armour was compared both to earlier model tests with cubes (2004) and new tests with cubes (2009). In all cases were used identical roundhead geometry and test setup in the wave basin. 1 Dept. of Civil Engineering, Aalborg University, Sohngaardsholmsvej 57, DK-9000 Aalborg, Denmark 2 Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, ETSI Caminos, Camino de Vera s/n, 46022 Valencia, Spain 1
2 COASTAL ENGINEERING 2010 ROUNDHEAD GEOMETRY AND ARMOUR MATERIALS Figures 2 and 3 show the model cross section of the roundhead and the adjacent trunk. 735 395 HWL (+45) LWL (+0) -240-320 -400 50 160 1:2 160 1:2 110 1:1.5 Cubipods / cubes 770 = 19.25 DN 684 368 660 356 1109 15 41 app. 89 Core (DN,50 = 4.8) 19.75 DN = Approx. 790 1:1.5 +250 +161 +120 +105 1610 Stone (DN,50=15.9) Cube (DN=31.7) 2 layer cubes (DN=18.5) Filter stone (DN,50=9.4) Figure 2. Model cross section of the roundhead (measures in mm). 735 395 975 HWL (+45) LWL (+0) 160 50 160 110 1:1.5 Cubipods / cubes 411 478 Core (DN,50 = 4.8) 1:1.5 +250 +161 +120 +105-240 -320-400 1:2 1:2 15 41 app. 89 50 501 1109 885 Figure 3. Model cross section of the trunk (measures in mm). Stone (DN,50=15.9) Cube (DN=31.7) 2 layer cubes (DN=16.5) 1 layer cube (DN=50.0) Filter stone (DN,50=9.4) The specifications of the materials applied in the models are given in Table 1. 80 Table 1. Elements used for the model (model scale values). Elements Block size [mm] Mass density [t/m 3 ] Mass [g] D n [m] Armour cubes 40 40 40 2.32 146 0.053 Cubipods 35 35 35 (smallest dimension) 52 52 52 (largest dimension) 2.22 128 0.047 Toe parallellepipedes 29 29 37 2.17 69 0.037 Filter cubes type 1 18.5 18.5 18.5 2.34 15 - Filter cubes type 2 16.5 16.5 16.5 2.04 9 - The core material was narrow graded crushed stones with D n50 = 4.8 mm. The Cubipods and the cubes were randomly placed in a double layer. The thickness of the layers was approx. 89 mm. corresponding to approx. 2.2 D n. Exact thickness cannot be given without a detailed definition of the surface of the armour layers. However, such definitions must be linked to the method of the measuring the surface. The packing density and the related volume of concrete per unit area varied in the various models as given in Table 2. The area used in the calculation is that of the armour layer surface when taking layer thickness as 2.2 D n.
COASTAL ENGINEERING 2010 3 Table 2. Packing densities and concrete volumes. Tests Packing density [units/d 2 n ] Concrete volume [m 3 /m 2 ] Cubipods (2009) 1.23 1.24 0.0445 0.0449 Cubes (2009) 1.27 0.0474 Cubes (2004) 1.41 0.0525 It is seen that approx. 6-17% more concrete were used in the cube armour layer compared to the Cubipod armour layer. MODEL LAYOUT The layout of the model is shown in Fig. 4. The wave generators consist of 25 hydraulic operated snake type flaps with strokes (translation) up to 1.2 m. An array of seven wave gauges was used to record the directional waves. A three gauge array (always orientation in mean direction) was used as check on results from the seven gauge array. A seabed slope of 1:25 was established on front of the breakwater model. WAVE PADDLE, MAX. POSITION WAVE GAUGE 1-7 5 4650 2418 2548 NW 2678 5300 3618 4063 3160 4000 WAVE GAUGE 8-10 R1610 4785 Figure 4. Layout of the model. Measures in mm. WAVES AND WAVE ANALYSIS Both short-crested and long-crested waves were generated corresponding to a JONSWAP spectrum with peak enhancement parameter γ = 3.3. For the short-crested waves was used the Longuet-Higgins spreading function with s = 15. The waves were generated online by the AwaSys Program (Aalborg University 2008a). The incident wave spectra were analyzed using WaveLab (Aalborg University 2008b). This software package uses the BDM-method (Hashimoto and Kobune 1988) for directional wave analysis. An example of the 3D variance spectrum is shown in Fig. 5.
4 COASTAL ENGINEERING 2010 Figure 5. Example of variance spectrum. I r Wave steepness were in the range s 0p = 0.02-0.05. The Iribarren number range was tanα H s = = 3.0 4.4. The maximum stability number reached among all tests was N s = = 3. 4. Hs D sop g H The Reynolds number s D Re = n was approx. 5 10 4, sufficient to avoid scale effects related to ν armour stability. ν is the kinematic viscosity. Two mean wave directions were used in the tests: Angle of incidence 0 and 22.5, cf. Fig. 6. DAMAGE DEFINITION AND OBSERVATION The roundhead was divided into sectors as shown in Fig. 6 in order to facilitate determination of the spatial distribution of damage. Note that the sectors are not identical in the tests with Cubipods and cubes. The damage is given for each sector and for the whole roundhead (180 sector) as percentage of units displaced more than one D n. Sectors for tests with Cubipods (2009) Sectors for tests with cubes (2004 and 2009) n NW 0º WNW 22.5º 12 11 9a 9b 10 5 7a 7b 8 13 6 NW WNW 6 5 8 7 9 10 11 13 12 Figure 6. Division of roundheads into sectors.
TEST RESULTS Typical examples of test results are given below. COASTAL ENGINEERING 2010 5 2-D Waves Fig. 7a, 7b and 7c show the damage development in tests with 2-D waves, s 0p = approx. 0.04 and angle of incidence 0. Damage 180º sector a) b) c) Figure 7. Damage in tests with 2-D waves s 0p = approx. 0.04 and angle of incidence 0.
6 COASTAL ENGINEERING 2010 It is seen that the total damages in a 180 sector is almost the same for Cubipods and cubes. The dispersion of damage over the roundhead is however more pronounces for the Cubipod armour (the larger number of sectors taken into account). Fig. 8a and 8b show photos of the end of the tests presented in Fig. 7. a) b) Figure 8. Photos of the roundheads after exposure to 2-D waves s 0p = approx. 0.04 and angle of incidence 0. a) Cube armour, N s = 2.98, H s =15.69 m at scale 1:100. b) Cubipod armour, N s = 3.34, H s = 15.67 at scale 1:100.
COASTAL ENGINEERING 2010 7 3-D Waves Fig. 9a, 9b and 9c show damage in the tests with 3-D waves, s 0p = approx. 0.035 and angle of incidence 0. Damage 180º sector a) b) c) Figure 9. Damage in test with 3-D waves s 0p = approx. 0.035 and angle of incidence 0. It is seen that Cubipod armour perform better than cube armour. Fig. 10 shows as an example a photo of the maximum observed damage of Cubipod armour after exposure to waves reaching N s = 3.2. Only at two locations are the filter layer visible over limited areas.
8 COASTAL ENGINEERING 2010 Figure 10. Exposed filter in Cubipod for N s = 3.2. 3-D waves, s 0p = approx. 0.035 and angle of incidence 0. Fig. 11a and 11b show damages in Cubipod and cube armour layers over 180 sectors for angle of incidence 0 and 22.5, respectively. a) b) Figure 11. Accumulated damage over 180 sector. 3-D waves s 0p = approx. 0.025. a) Angle of incidence 0. b) Angle of incidence 22.5.
COASTAL ENGINEERING 2010 9 It is seen from Fig. 11 that in the waves of small steepness, the Cubipod armour is significantly more stable than the cube armour. The differences in damage between the two types of armour is clearly seen in Figs. 12a and 12b which shows photos of the armour at the end of the test series with 3-D waves, s 0p = approx. 0.025 and angle of incidence 22.5. Note that for the cubes, the reached N s = 2.85, whereas for the Cubipods N s = 3.15. a) b) Figure 12. Photos of armour damage at the end of tests with 3-D waves, s 0p = approx. 0.025 and angle of incidence 22.5. a) cube armour, N s = 2.85, H s = 14.97 at scale 1:100. b) Cubipod armour, N s = 3.15, H s = 14.79 at scale 1:100. CONCLUSIONS The following conclusions are limited to comparative tests with only one roundhead geometry, i.e. slope 1:1.5 and a fairly large diameter. Moreover, the waves were non-depth limited. The conclusions extracted from the tests (not all presented in this paper) are as follows: In 2-D steep waves (s 0p = 0.05): No significant difference in cube and Cubipod stability. In 3-D medium steep waves (s 0p = 0.035): Cubipods might be marginally more stable than cubes. In 3-D long waves (s 0p = 0.025): Cubipods are significantly more stable than cubes. The stability of both cube and Cubipod armour is reduced in 3-D waves compared to 2-D waves. Cubipod armour seems to have reduced stability in steeper waves. Cubipod armour stability seems not affected by small changes in laying density in the range 1.24-1.30 units/d n 2. In evaluating these conclusions it should be considered that the volume of concrete used in the cube armour layers were 6% - 17% larger than in the Cubipod armour layer. The larger porosity of Cubipod armour is most probably the reason for the better performance of Cubipod armour in long waves. The roundhead stability formula for cubes (Macineria and Burcharth, 2007) can be modified to include Cubipod armour as shown in Gómez-Martin and Medina, 2008.
10 COASTAL ENGINEERING 2010 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS MSc Jose Maria Urrutia Aldama is acknowledged for his work with the model testing. REFERENCES Aalborg University 2008a. AwaSys 5 - Wave Generation and Active Absorption Software. http://hydrosoft.civil.aau.dk/awasys. Dept. of Civil Engineering, Aalborg University. Aalborg University 2008b. WaveLab2 - Data Acquisition and Analysis Software for Wave Laboratories. http://hydrosoft.civil.aau.dk/wavelab. Dept. of Civil Engineering, Aalborg University. Burcharth, H.F., Lykke Andersen, T. and Urrutia Aldama, J.M. 2009. Three-Dimensional Model Tests Study of a Cubipod Armoured Roundhead. DCE Contract Report No 58. Division of water and Soil, Department of Civil Engineering, Aalborg University, Denmark. Gómez-Martin, M.E. and Medina, J.R. 2008. Erosion of Cubipod armour layers under wave attack. Proc. 31st International Conference on Coastal Eng., ASCE, 3461-3473. Hashimoto, N. and Kobune, K. 1988. Estimation of directional spectrum from a Bayesian approach. Proc. 21st International Conference on Coastal Eng., ASCE, 62-72. Macineira, E. and Burcharth, H.F. 2007. New formula for stability of cube armoured roundheads. Proc. 5 th Coastal Structures 2007 International Conference, World Scientific, 31-40.